August 18, 2015 Net 3 Texas Accountability for State and Federal System Safeguards

Identify purpose of system safeguards in the Texas Accountability System Examine a reporting change for system safeguards in the 2015 Accountability System Compare the differences and similarities between the state and the federal system safeguards Identify required intervention for not meeting safeguards Identify district and campus team membership for intervention purposes Review currently identified Priority and Focus campus requirements under the federal safeguards system Objectives

To ensure that in aggregated district or campus reports, substandard performance in one or more area or in one or more student subgroup is not disguised by higher performance in other areas or by other student groups. The intent of the system safeguards system is also to meet federal requirements that are not reported in the performance index Purpose of System Safeguards Report

Two system safeguards issued for 2015 The State System Safeguards excludes: Grade 3-8 mathematics, STAAR A and STAAR Alternate3 results No district level federal cap information will be provided The Federal System Safeguards will not be published until October 2015 and will include: results of STAAR A and STAAR Alternative 2 results of all STAAR Assessments in mathematics in grade 3-8 federal cap information relating to the number of STAAR Alternate 2 test given Reason for this delay: need for performance standards for grade 3-8 mathematics to be approved by the commissioner (expected to be approved by September, 2015) Reporting Change in the 2015 Accountability for System Safeguards

Similarities: Both State and Federal system safeguard data are taken from Index I State and federal system safeguard graduation rate measurements are the same State and federal system safeguard participation rate measurements are the same Differences and Similarities between State and Federal Safeguard Systems

Differences: State measures five tests results; Federal measures only math and reading results Number of student groups differ (state-11 student groups, federal-7 student groups) Performance targets are different* 2015 performance targets exclude mathematics grade 3-8 and STAAR A, STAAR Alternate 2 results in state system 2015 performance targets include mathematics grade 3-8 and STAAR A, STAAR Alternate 2 results in federal system Cap on use of the Alternative Assessment applies to the federal system Minimum size criteria differs between state and federal safeguard systems

For districts or campuses already identified for any intervention in the TAIS based on current or prior-year accountability designations, performance on the system safeguards will be incorporated into that improvement effort For districts or campuses that met standard, performance on the system safeguards will be addressed in the district and campus improvement plans (TEC Chapter 11) See State Accountability flowcharts Required Intervention

Secondary – content area department chairs Elementary – grade-level or content teams Content area coaches, facilitators, intervention specialists Representation from: ▫ Bi-lingual/ESL ▫ Counseling ▫ Special education ntions/Program_Monitoring_and_Interventions/Accountability_Monitoring_Interve ntion_Guidance_and_Resources/ Membership in Campus Leadership Teams

All level representation – elementary, middle and/or high school Central office administrators and campus administrators Representatives of campuses within the feeder patterns Parents of students impacted by indicator risks Representatives from ▫ Bi-lingual/ESL ▫ Counseling ▫ Special education ▫ CTE ▫ DAEP, if applicable ▫ Alternative Education, if applicable Membership in District Leadership Teams

Currently in Year 3 of the identified Priority and Focus campuses Priority schools are Title I high schools with graduation rates of less than 60% and/or schools with the lowest achievement on reading/math system safeguards at the All Student level (bottom 5% in the state) Focus schools are Title I schools ranked by the widest gaps between reading/math performance of the federal student groups and safeguard targets of 75%* in reading and math (bottom 10% in the state) Methodology found at: erventions/School_Improvement_and_Support/Priority,_Focus,_and_Reward_ Schools/ Federal System Safeguard Identification of Priority and Focus Campuses

Brenda O’Bannion Gayle Parenica Contacts for System Safeguards